Square Format 1:1

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Lately every time I crop an image, I like it square... that's new for me.</p>

<p>Anybody else?</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Anybody else?<P>

 

A couple years ago I put down my dSLR and just used my phone cam for a year making square photos

and portraits - even a publication. For me there are pros and cons shooting square; one being less visual clutter creeping into the sides (good) vs.

less environmental context that can help release narrative to a viewer (not so good).<P>

 

<a href="http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Mission%20Gallery%202/">Here's a set of photos</a> I made in one particular neighborhood,

San Francisco's Mission District...</a>

[JDMvW]

<p>You definitely need a medium format camera!</p>

<p>Lots of very great pictures (especially in the TLR era) were taken in square format on 6cm film.</p>

<p>Other cameras that used a square format were those primitive "point and shoot" cameras like the Taxona ( http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00c5w0 ) that took 1x1 format pictures on 35mm film. I'm not sure that there were a lot of classic images taken with them, however. ;)</p>

[vrankin]

<p>Peter: Are you familiar with <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=fritz+henle+photography&biw=1831&bih=905&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ni0wVKemLcSxyASJxoGgAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QsAQ">Fritz Henle's work?</a></p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Brad, I really like that stuff!</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>It's ironic, but back when I shot 6X6 format with a TLR, I usually cropped the frame to something like 4:3 ratio. Then, when shooting with an EOS 20D, I sometimes cropped to square format because the subject seemed to dictate it.</p>

<p>Brad, that's very nice work...</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Since 2012 I shoot square a lot and often crop square from 3:2 and 4:3. I wondered why and reexamined my photography history.</p>

<p>I realized it's because the first digicam I tried that lacked an eye level finder was like using my TLRs. I'm not looking through a viewfinder at a scene. I'm looking <em>at</em> a scene on a screen. Only difference is I'm looking at the screen held away from me at nearly eye level, rather than at waist or chest level.</p>

<p>My earliest cameras when I was a kid were all medium format square aspect ratio, as I progressed from simple box cameras to a Yashica TLR. So I'm conditioned to see that way. And I don't often crop from square, while I do routinely crop from 3:2 and 4:3 aspect ratio film and digicams.</p>

<p>And I tend to "see" in the framing of a 35mm lens on 35mm film, so even when I shoot looser with a wider lens, I tend to crop down to that equivalent view. Weird but it's ingrained into my instincts and hard to break when I'm shooting handheld candids. With zooms I tend to set them to whatever focal length would provide that equivalent view for the given format (13mm on my Nikon V1 with 10-30 kitzoom). With the Fuji X-A1 I'll occasionally set the aspect ratio to 1:1 and use it like a TLR, with the tilt screen flipped up and camera at chest level. Only the JPEG is recorded at 1:1 - the raw file is still full 3:2 aspect ratio, so I can change my mind later. Very handy.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>About 30 years ago I had a blast shooting with my Dad's old TLR (don't remember the brand, but it took amazing photos).<br /><br />LOVED it.</p>

<p>But... film is dead to me, so I'm not likely to go that way.</p>

<p>However, the one thing I thought I would NOT like about µ43, the 4:3 ratio, turns out to be my favorite thing about it now. Easy to crop to 16:9, 3:2, 1:1... and when you start in 4:3 ratio, it's easier to find a crop to any of those that looks good.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I did a lot of shooting with a Yashicamat TLR in the 70's and 80's. There is something very nice about the 80mm lens with the square format. I did everything from landscapes to portraits. A lot of these are in my folders here. Since I have shot all different formats over the years, I tend to crop whatever format I start out with to "fit" the image, so it might end up square, near square or 3:2 or anything in between. I don't have any problem with it. Its all good.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Hampton Inns typically have square format, B&W photos of local scenes in their lobbies. They have a good breakfast bar too, nice for families. This format seems to be popular in small restaurants and coffee houses on the near north side of Chicago. They often display work of local artists and photographers. When I shoot square format, I unconsciously compose to the edges, and can't crop. Square grows on you.</p>

[sallymack]

<p>Took me awhile to get used to square format when I bought a Hasselblad film camera some 10 years ago after having shot 35mm for decades. Now I don't shoot anything except square format. Even the little digital cameras I buy (one big camera is enough to lug around) have a 1:1 shooting ratio option. --Sally</p><div></div>

[david_henderson]

<p>Brad, I like your series and as you say, they are very well focussed on their point.</p>

<p>I used square virtually exclusively for a decade , and even now there are types of image that I habitually crop to square from my dslr. If I could shoot digital square (rather than cropping) at a price/weight/size/resolution that suited me , I think I'd have a real dilemma.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I shoot a lot of 6x6 MF so square is natural for me.</p>

[Alan Johnson]

<p>Some of the best work I have seen was shot on 6x6 film and this encourages me to continue.<br>

I scan in the film rebate so the viewer can see it is not digital.</p><div></div>

[rashedahmed]

<p>Square Format reminds me the Hasselblad 500CM of film era. Good for portrait /still life composition, at least for me.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Because it doesn't impose its values on you (like a "landscape" or a "portrait" aspect ratio), the square is very neutral as a framing and thereby opens up many interesting compositional possibilities. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Brad those are wonderful pictures. I shoot 6x7 usually landscapes and do wind up cropping often to a format that's neither 6x7 or 6x6 or 3:2, etc. I think square works well with portraits although anything can work well if the shot is right regardless of the format.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Over the years I have shot with numerous different cameras and most times I framed shots to use the format .... when I had a Rollie I usually had the '16 on' adaptor which gave me a 4:3 I think and I would turn the camera on its side when appropriate.<br>

I never think about the format, only the composition to suit the subject matter.</p>

[peter_mellis]

<p>Outside of handling other people's TLRs over the years, I have never shot in square format. I started in photography with an 828 camera, then went to 35mm and stuck with that until I started to shoot digital. Medium format has been 645 and 6X7. That said, I have lately become interested in looking through some of my work, cropping to square when I think it works and printing relatively small (4X4 to 6X6) and using large mats for display. Who knows, this might lead to the last thing I need: another camera...</p>

[MTC Photography]

[MTC Photography]

ROBOT ii

[MTC Photography]

ROBOT STAR 50

[MTC Photography]

ROBOT ROYAL III

[MTC Photography]

ROBOT VOLLAUTOMAT

[dcstep]

A lot of my stuff ends up 1:1. I used to think it was caused by starting on a 44x44mm TLR 60-years ago, but now I look at my recent work and see 5:4, 2:1, 5:2, 4:3, etc. I shoot birds and wildlife a lot and many shots require a crop and then I decide on format based on the composition potential that I have in the original frame. I seldom think about how it'll print. For the few that I print, I reconsider the aspect ratio, knowing some of my favorite paper dimensions. In the digital world, I don't see a need to get boxed in to one format. (Pun intended).